Observational studyMicrobiology spectrum2021
Prospective Study of the Performance of Parent-Collected Nasal and Saliva Swab Samples, Compared with Nurse-Collected Swab Samples, for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Microorganisms.
Observational study in Microbiology spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Acceptability, Feasibility, and Uptake of COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Self-Testing at the Community Level in Tanzania.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- A descriptive study on feasibility of nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab collection from pediatric research participants in Cebu, Philippines.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Article
- Effectiveness of Self-Collected, Ambient Temperature-Preserved Nasal Swabs Compared to Samples Collected by Trained Staff for Genotyping of Respiratory Viruses by Shotgun RNA Sequencing: Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- The potential of saliva as an accessible and sensitive sample type for the detection of respiratory pathogens and host immunity.The Lancet. Microbe · 2023Review
- Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Human bocavirus-1 infections in Australian children aged < 2 years: a birth cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023Article
- Self-sampling to identify pathogens and inflammatory markers in patients with acute sore throat: Feasibility study.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are ubiquitous among children in the community. A prospective observational study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and quality of at-home parent-collected (PC) nasal and saliva swab samples, compared to nurse-collected (NC) swab samples, from children with RTI symptoms. Children with RTI symptoms were swabbed at home on the same day by a parent and a nurse. We compared the performance of PC swab samples as the test with NC swab samples as the reference for the detection of respiratory pathogen gene targets by reverse transcriptase PCR, with quality assessment using a human gene. PC and NC paired nasal and saliva swab samples were collected from 91 and 92 children, respectively. Performance and interrater agreement (Cohen's κ) of PC versus NC nasal swab samples for viruses combined showed sensitivity of 91.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.47 to 95.73%) and κ of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), respectively; the respective values for bacteria combined were 91.4% (95% CI, 86.85 to 94.87%) and κ of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.89). In saliva samples, viral and bacterial sensitivities were lower at 69.0% (95% CI, 57.47 to 79.76%) and 78.1% (95% CI, 71.60 to 83.76%), as were κ values at 0.64 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.72) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.76), respectively. Quality assessment for human biological material (18S rRNA) indicated perfect interrater agreement. At-home PC nasal swab samples performed comparably to NC swab samples, whereas PC saliva swab samples lacked sensitivity for the detection of respiratory microbes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.